Earlier decisions ruled against petitioners
3/31/06
Although FAMM worked several years with excellent private attorneys and federal public defenders to represent good-time petitioners in the lower courts, every circuit court considering the issue ruled against petitioners.
(The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently reviewing a case and because there are no federal prisons in the District of Columbia, that circuit has no case.)
Litigants argued that the statute that grants good time, 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b), clearly provides that the 54 days, if earned, must be applied to reduce the sentence by 54 days. Nearly all the courts determined that the statute granting federal good time is “ambiguous.” They have held that the method of determining good time (though not the maximum amount available) is unclear from the words of the statute. The courts have then used a rule that it says directs them to “defer” to the agency’s (in this case the BOP) interpretation of a statute if ambiguity cannot be resolved.
Anticipating this response, litigants further asserted that even if the statute is unclear, the courts should not defer to the agency’s interpretation before using what are called “traditional rules of statutory construction” to clear up the ambiguity. One of those tools is the “rule of lenity,” which directs courts to resolve ambiguous punishment laws in ways that favor the prisoner. The courts, however, largely ignored the rule of lenity in reaching their decisions, despite recent Supreme Court decisions affirming its use in related areas.